Last week the British Columbia Provincial Court threw out WCB regulations
regarding 'no smoking' in private establishments because, as the judge
decided, there was not enough 'public consultation' on the issue. It seems
that the yelling, screaming, protesting and plain old non compliance of
the provinces hospitality industry saved it from an untimely end. At the
same time the provincial NDP government is quickly backpedaling and distancing
itself from the whole fiasco. The premier states that his government had
nothing to do with the law - it was a WCB matter. How politically expedient
of them. You would think we were getting close to an election year or
something... oh... that's right - we are. Must be a coincidence?

Admittedly, it is nice to see this asinine legislation go for one reason
or another but I am constantly befuddled by the apparent lack of any sense
of justice or foresight by the people of this country. Maybe you're wondering
what I'm ranting about? Let's think about the ruling for just a moment
shall we? The law was struck down, not because it violated our rights
to life and property but because there was not enough "public consultation"
on it.

Not only does the judge's ruling leave a lot of loop holes open for the
WCB and other health fascists to enforce similar legislation in the future
but it lays down a new standard for the creation of law. The judges ruling
(perhaps worded to save face) states that the law would have been just
had there been more open discussion amongst the general public. This is
a dangerous definition of justice. What the court is saying is that as
long as there is enough popular opinion (or just plain priming of the
citizenry) behind any law, regardless of how just or unjust it may be,
it is acceptable to enforce it on the populace.

Yikes! Is this a symptom of things to come, where a majority of 51 per
cent is enough to pass legislation that violates the rights of the other
49 per cent? Or is this an example of how colour of law has run amuck
in this country? Perhaps it is both?

In essence the ruling handed down by this justice does not even state
that any law requires a majority's consent to be passed. All that is required
is that representatives from various groups (which groups and how many
of them are represented is not clearly defined) in the community come
together to be consulted on the law. After that has taken place no one
has a right to whine, bitch complain or protest because there was, after
all, public consultation on the issue. Yet the folks in the restaurant
and pub business seem to be placated with this ruling. What they don't
realize is that they are admitting that they have no right to the ownership
of their property and that in fact the right to smoke on their own property
is a privilege granted to them by the government, courts and some imaginary
group of representatives who must be consulted on such issues before hand.

Canadians are slowly digging there own graves by accepting rulings such
as this. In doing so we give our rulers carte blanche to run roughshod
over every natural right we possess as long as we are "notified ahead
of time" and there is a an acceptable level of "public consultation"
on the legislation. The whole idea is so damn absurd it's almost laughable.
I can't help but chuckle every time I imagine how this process might work
- the image that comes to mind is born from an old cliché that
says democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what they should have
for dinner. Indeed, one wonders which is worse: a tyrannical piece of
legislation that violates the property rights of a given sector of society
or the subsequent ruling handed down in a kangaroo court which strikes
the law but allows the government or any of its bureaucratic wings to
pass any arbitrary rules with the agreement of a majority or the right
amount of "public consultation." Moreover, how much do you want
to bet that "public consultation" becomes the new catch phrase
for every liberal fascist and starting point for every tyrannical law
in the future?

I can see the situation now: "But Mr. Property Owner, we consulted
the publik on this issue and they decided that the state could run your
farm in a much more effective manner than you or any other 'individual'
could. In fact there was plenty of 'public consultation' on the 'Nationalization
of Farm Lands Act' so you have nothing to complain about. The whole process
was completely democratic."

This, in effect, is the logical extension of our judges ruling. As of
now anything goes as long as we're told ahead of time what's going on
and an imaginary sampling of the general population is consulted on the
topic. The problem with consultation (other than the obvious fact that
one cannot consult the citizenry - or any pathetic representation of it
- on how they would like their rights violated) is that the government
and the courts are free to take or leave whatever advice those representatives
give them. That is what consultation means. It is the asking for and giving
of 'advice only' and it has nothing to do with the democratic process.

Of course the upside to all of this is that with the right government
in power we could turn this whole mess around. As long as we consult the
'public' first we could enforce major penalties for lying in office, for
using colourable law and for violating the rights of one's fellow citizens.
No? Don't think it will happen? Well... a guy can dream can't he? In the
mean time the public has to learn the difference between 'right' and 'granted
privilege' if they are to keep laws such as this from creeping once more
into their lives and doing, in some cases, irreparable damage.

Scott Carpenter is the editor of Liberty
Free Press and a regular contributor to Enter Stage Right.